lens/body choices

jameshays

Member
Local time
10:58 PM
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
38
I've got about $1400 for a bessa body and lens(es) and would like some user input. My main interests are a lightweight kit, photo quality, and enjoyment of use.

1400 is about enough for a used R2 and a used 35 summicron - OR one of the new offerings, that new 40 and money to spare for an extra lens.

Not really interested in ultra wide lenses or anything that requires a separate finder. Anyone using a cron with the bessa? Any thoughts on a first kit would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
http://www.cameraquest.com/rflench.htm

For me I went with the three lens outfit-
35mm, 50mm and 90mm. So I cover all my "normal" focal length choices. Also the choice was a mirror of my Hasselblad lens setup (50mm, 80mm and 150mm).

Don't own a 'cron, but I have heard good things about the first editon, someone here will own one and tell you all about it. I went for a Nikkor 5cm/2. Now looking for a Nikkor 10.5cm/105mm.

Stu 🙂
 
...and oh yeah... unless someone's already beaten me.

Welcome to the forum James.

Stu 🙂

(or should it be 'welcome to the fold'???)
 
Yes, welcome James! 🙂 I would go with the strengths of the RF to begin with and either get the new Bessa R3A/40mm f1.4 Nokton combo (~$850) or a 35/50mm pair with the R3A. The CV 35mm lenses are very good, but I have not used a CV 50. Others can help you here with that. Once you use a 35 for a length of time the 50 seems like a medium telephoto.

OTOH, if you got the new Nokton 40, you could pair it with the CV 75mm/f2.5 which is $300 so you are still within budget. It's small and the pictures I've seen from it are fantastic.
 
I think Peter is on the right track, what are the focal lengths you are most comfortable with now? If 35mm will be your work horse then perhaps a used R2, or new R2a are good picks. If you tend to lean towards longer, them maybe a new R3a would be better.

I also agree with your thought of building your system around your lenses. If 35mm is it, and you like the image quality of a 35 Summi (who wouldn't) and you are a fanatic like me, then nothing else will do. That is why I have a 50 Summicon. But don't look past the CV glass and older lenses. Many are excellent, and much more affordable.

Finally, will one lens do it for you? For $1,400 you can build an entire CV kit. A Bessa R3a or R2a with 2 or 3 lenses can be done.
 
Oh, I have the 35mm Ultron, excellent, sharp, images don't have the "look" of the 35 Summicron, but they are very good. I also have the 75 Heliar, excellent lens, great image character, a good reason for a 40/75 combo if you are looking for something a little long.
 
"Finally, will one lens do it for you? For $1,400 you can build an entire CV kit. "

It might. If the look and feel of the Cron is that much better than anything else, I may just choose that. Also, I've never used a RF before. Might be a benefit to a one lens setup in that regard.
 
Good thoughts, take a look in the gallery at Todd Hanz's shots. Many are made with a 35 Summicron. I find that seeing different shots is the best way to determine if one lens is better than another. Best is a personal choice. I am sure there are others who have images with a 35 Summicron, I just can't think of them right now. I have some made with the CV Ultron, and Peter has many made with a couple different CV 35mm lenses.
 
You probably have already read this.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=20917#post20917

One other thing to consider, what about the 40/2 Summicron C or 40/2 Minolta CLE Rokkor? Both are excellent and share many of the same characteristics of the 35 Summicron. They also are much more affordable. I just mentioned on another thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1778&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) that Leica users often bring up these two options as a better choice than the 35 Summicron. I have a 40 CLE and find it to be excellent.
 
James, what is your past experience? Are you set on 35mm focal length or are you looking for ideas about focal length as well? I like Rover's suggestion that you consider 40mm as one of your options. If you are going to have just one lens, that's a good length to pick.

If you decide to buy the 35 Summicron, there is a big difference in weight between black & chrome. Chrome is 4 oz. heavier - an increase of almost 50% in lens weight. Since you said you want a lightweight kit, I'd go with black. Optics are the same - excellent.

You can get even lighter by getting either of the Voigtlander 35/2.5 lenses. The Pancake & the Classic are the same weight, i.e. about half as heavy as the black Summicron (or 4 oz. lighter). The Classic is a little longer but has a more classic, elegant look & is still quite compact. I've never heard anyone complain about the optical quality of either of these 2 lenses & many people have sung their praises. The Classic needs an adaptor to be mounted on an R2/3, which is $33 for a generic at Cameraquest - but it's still $70 cheaper than the Pancake even with the additional cost of the adaptor. It's a real bargain right now. The Summicron is only 2/3 stop faster - not a lot to sacrifice for the savings in size & weight. I rarely shoot at f/2, so it's no sacrifice for me. If you need the extra speed,one of today's great fast films is a cheap solution.

If you're likely to be sticking with a single lens, a good choice would be a Bessa R with the 35/2.5 Classic for as little as $399 from Cameraquest on a close-out sale. It will not accept M-mount lenses, so if you get hooked, you might some day trade up to an M-mount body. Or you might not. Mechanically it's the same as the R2, has the same viewfinder & same rangefinder, & it has the additional feature of a self-timer, which the R2 does not. And you can use 90% of the Voigtlander lenses on this body. It's a great way to get started with a rangefinder & you can always sell the body if you eventually want a different one or keep it as a second body. This set-up will also come with a year's warranty vs. a used R2 which will not. And you'll have $1000 left in your pocket!

IMO, you'd do best with a single lens right now unless you already know of other focal lengths that you need. If you do not, shoot with the 35mm lens for a while & then decide what else you need to go with it.

Happy shopping!
 
rover said:
I am sure there are others who have images with a 35 Summicron, I just can't think of them right now.
Some of my 35 'cron shots are in the gallery, I think. It's a 1st V that I got new 37 years ago, and glad I did. Newer lenses may be sharper and contrastier, but in the Leica culture it's come down to an issue of "character," and according to the pundits, this lens has it in spades, followed closely by other pre-asph versions. 🙂

I have to admit that I don't know this from personal observation. It does have a nice look to it, but so does the 40mm CLE Rokkor. I was somehow oblivious to all this 20 years ago when I was actively printing in my darkroom. Now back into photography more strongly again in the past several years, there's been no darkroom printing, just digital scans which may not display the differences. Maybe I should dig out some old 11x14 prints and correlate what lens was used.

I think a 35 or 40 is a good starter. I'd suggest moving into the RF world without a huge initial investment, even as large as $1400. See if it fits your style, and/or if your style can adapt to fit the "Rangefinder Way."

How about a new/used Bessa-R and a 2.5/35mm Color Skopar? This lens is reputed to have a very pleasant look to it, somewhat akin to the later pre-asph 'crons. (Gee it looks like Huck & I are on the same wavelength here!) You can dive in with credit cards in both fists later on... 😀
 
James,

If I were in your shoes, (and had your pockets, with $1400 in them), I'd be very tempted by the New Bessa R3a with that big 1:1 viewfinder, and a mint Rokkor CLE, 40 f2. That'd leave you with +/- $400 change for your next lens, and and film money while your deciding.

If you're used to a 35mm (as I was), a 40mm isn't much of a pinch at all, and it is a superbe lens, period. It's a Summicron, and it behaves like one (I had a 35 Summi. that was sadly damaged in a fall). The only disadvantage to using it has been removed by the inclusion of the 40mm lines in the R3a's finder.

I would want to wait until the R3a's hit the streets, just in-case there are bugs, and I'd also want to wait for word on the new Cosina 40 f1.4. If it matches the Summicron C/Rokkor 40 f2's performance, It'll be a fantastic value.

My but it's fun spending other peoples money.
 
"Just to give an alternative...

How about a nice M3?"

Thought about that. I hear they are an absolute joy to use but the lack of a meter scares me a bit. I could add one from Cameraquest of course but it sounds like a bit too much work.
 
Another vote for the Summicron-C 40mm/2. I use one on my Bessa R2 and love it. I've heard the Rokkor CLE 40mm is another fine lens.

I'm travelling more and more with a 40/75 combo. The CV 75 is a honey of a lens.

Gene
 
Taipei-metro said:
Huck,
Sorry I forgot that you're the owner of this RF forum.
Whatever you recomend is right.
Rollei RF + Sonnar 40 2.8 that is.
Now, now, Taipei-metro -- I'm sure both you and Huck are glad not to be the owners of the forum, responsible for keeping things running smoothly!

There is room for a wide variety of opinion and suggestions here. Huck has been clear I think that he's expressing his opinion... It seems to me you've on occasion been absolute in expressing your views. We cannot and should not order James to get what we think is best; that's for him to determine... perhaps partly on the basis of ideas and information presented here.

James will hear us out and act on the basis of what suits him best. We're here to share experiences and views, and enjoy ourselves! I thank you, Taipei-metro, for your contributions to the forum; go in peace! 😉
 
Back
Top Bottom